MAXIMUM VS. OPTIMUM STOCKING. 45 



5 acres to one head of cattle, and its optimum 8 acres to one head. 

 This range would thus be carrying 360 head of stock; reduced to the 

 optimum, the herd would number 225, a reduction of 135 head, or 37-J 

 per cent. 



Though such a reduction seems heavy, it must be borne in mind 

 that some of these annual ranges have naturally suffered a reduction 

 by overstocking till it takes 10, 12, or even 20 acres to support an 

 animal, which means that the herd has been reduced from sheer lack 

 of feed from 360 to 180, 150 or even 90 animals to an area of 1,800 

 acres. This does not take into consideration the possibility of still 

 further reduction of carrying capacity to 20 acres to a head, which is 

 said to be sometimes the case, but which is perhaps due to very excep- 

 tional circumstances. 



The question to be considered is whether it is more profitable (1) to 

 continue stocking up to the maximum capacity of the range, with the 

 almost certain result of a forced reduction of the herd by 50, 60, or 

 possibly 75 per cent in a comparatively short time from lack of feed, 

 or (2) to voluntarily reduce the herd to the optimum capacity of the 

 range, equivalent to, say 37-J per cent reduction, with the result that 

 this capacity can be maintained indefinitely, that the stock will be in 

 better condition all the time, and will command higher prices than 

 those from depreciated ranges. 



A few figures may help to make the case clearer. We have no data 

 as to the actual number of years that one of these annual ranges can 

 continue to carry the maximum number of head without deterioration, 

 nor do we know how long it has taken them to run down to their pres- 

 ent poor condition. It does not seem probable, however, that it would 

 take more than fifteen years of carrying all the stock a range can pos- 

 sibly feed to reduce its capacity from 5 acres to 10 or 12 acres per head. 



If, for argument's sake, we take the arbitrary figures of fifteen 

 years, and assume, moreover, that the range of 1,800 acres has been 

 used to fatten yearlings, all of which were sold off the succeeding year 

 and new stock purchased, the aggregate number of cattle carried in 

 the fifteen years under the plan of stocking up to the maximum would 

 be 3,930, and at the end of the period the carrying capacity would 

 have been reduced from 360 head to 150 head. Supposing that this 

 ratio of 150 head could be maintained for the next thirty years, we 

 should have an aggregate number of 8,430 head of yearlings raised in 

 the forty-five years. 



If, however, we reduce the herd to the optimum at the outset, we 

 should find the aggregate number raised would be 3,375 head, in fif- 

 teen years 555 head less than by the old method ; but at the end of 

 the fifteen years the herd numbers 225 instead of 150, and this num- 

 ber can be maintained indefinitely; in ten years more we find that the 

 aggregate lias risen to 5,625, as against only 5,430 b}^ the maximum 

 method, an increase of 195 head, and by the end of forty-five years 



